MArcomage

I think that tower construction decks have an insane curve of power. The reason is easy, in the beginings of Arcomage, the construction cards where rare and not very high points (wall and tower increase), for that reason the quary and bricks have adventaje in all ways, just to see that all the +brick are higher than the rest of the resourses, but today, with so many tower construction cards, a deck of tower construction is the easiest deck in the game.
An easy example is Mud elemental, where in 2 turns with just 4 unliving in hand, you can gain 32 to your wall, something imposible to damage in the same 2 turns, besides it can show up very often. There are many examples of brick decks with easy grow.
Other example of umbalance for variety, are the -tower cards, in the beginings they where extremly rare, you can count them with the fingers... today they are so many, a -tower deck is possible and have a tremendous power, they are cheap, varied and can only be matched against a tower construction.
My propossed solution is to delete the bricks adventage in all cards, and increase the -tower cost.
what do you think?

I think your experience has a lot less to do with total game balance and a lot more to do with the decks you've been up against lately and the decks you've been using lately. Looking at your last 10 games as of the current date, you were pitting a lot of slow, resource/rare focused decks against a lot of fast, offensive/defensive focused decks. The latter tends to usually win against the former, but the former are still used because some players find them more entertaining.

Edit: Also because I can't stand it anymore, it's spelled "imbalance".

I'll give the same advice I do every time someone calls out a different deck style as being too powerful. (And it's always a different kind of deck.)

Make a deck taking advantage of that perceived imbalance. If it isn't the powerhouse you thought it was, focus on why you were losing and retool your previous decks to combat it as well. If it does win more often than it should, post your records for that deck with balance changes you suggest for specific cards. Mojko watches card usage stats to see what needs balancing. The best way to get a card rebalanced is to use it extensively.

Too often, someone suggests a type of deck is too powerful without that person having played it. Calling for changes because of your experience winning too much is more valuable than the opposite.

I think that you don't know that i have being playing this game more than many here :P the thing is that i come and go (i was here before gold existed).
I think that you are seing just one of my decks, ill put all of them visible.
My best (well.. easiest deck, tower construction) is imperia, followed by gods destroyer (unliving deck), then saints of black moon (barbarian) and wizard of earth sea (mage)
Already tryed a lot more combinations, now i was trying dragon and was quite obvius that damage deck had a really heavy cost compared with resourse (stealing or acumulation) or tower damage decks.
And is easy to see, just go to cards... and filter, and compare...

Im not comparing decks for the wining factor but the loosing, because wining is affected with lucky, and loosing is more easy to see if it is easy to beat. So if a deck is easy to beat, then something is going wrong, when all editing and tunning of the deck is done and it still being beaten in less than 30 rounds, something is happening.

ALWAYS TAKING AWAY "LUCKY" and "SO LUCKY" FACTOR, pure randomness, playing with cards open to both players and normal 100 tower wining (as the game was concibed)
Sorry for my bad spelling some times, im from argentina and google traductor is not much better.

([url=www.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page]Wiktionary[/url] is also something that might help understand English; it allows you to check specific words to make sure you know which one is which.)

I see you formatted your post a bit while I was writing, which helps, but I'm still having to work to understand your post, and I think I may have failed; you don't seem to be responding to the points in either of our posts, just sorta rambling about how your ~credentials and "luck" is somehow important to bring up.

I guess I could go over your post piece by piece to unravel everything that seems wrong with it, and I started doing so, but it feels like falling into some trap. Oh well; I'll do one piece.

"Im not comparing decks for the wining factor but the loosing, because wining is affected with lucky, and loosing is more easy to see if it is easy to beat."
I mean, how do you possibly compare the number of winning games without comparing the number of losing games? Games in arcomage are generally split between wins and losses, with a few ties thrown in, so if two players play 50 games and Player 1 wins 18, then that probably means Player 1 lost about 32 games (maybe minus a few for ties).
The reason DPsycho mentions judging by a player winning, is psychological in nature; people tend to be more willing to think there's a problem when they are losing, whereas when they are on the winning side of the same imbalance they don't pay attention to it or try to fix it. So a player complaining about winning tends to be more likely indicative of a problem than a player complaining about losing. I think it's the Self-serving bias, but there are a lot of biases, so maybe there's a more specific name to this situation.

im complaining about winning, as i said, my best decks are construction decks. And not good ones, just normal but better than the rest that i have because they are easy to do, easy to build and all the cards have adventage over the rest, from resourse to increasing points, and is easy to play.

Also, you can see your loosing score only by your self, since luck is a GREAT factor with less than 30 rounds. What i mean is:
If you win, you could be just more lucky than the opponent.

If you loose, you can see if you where just unlucky, or your deck is umblanaced (if you get too much form one card and you don't find any use to it), or the card you need did not show (means that your deck is "card dependant"), your resourses where not enough (high cost or lack of resource cards) etc... If you get to discard those normal deck building factors, then something else is going on, if you played more than around 40 rounds then luck becomes a tiny factor, because there was enough chances to have each common and uncommon card in your deck (and some rare). So the next steep is to compare again against the same opponent with other deck, with that you can see it's not a "nemesis deck" (his deck is made to play against yours).

well, at least those are my steeps to test deck and cards. if you don't have a tower building or unliving deck, create one and prepare to have an easy game.
you djin have a lot of decks like that (or always the same, dont know), and you had a lot of those short, quick, your side only matches. YOU HAVE An average of 30 rounds per match... that's not a good sign.

Going back to your first post, you start off talking about construction decks but then discuss Unliving and Mud elemental. Unliving is actually rather versatile, not strictly building, and is best-suited for slow matches and practically requires having 5 or more Quarry to be effective. Mud elemental is a +wall card rather than +tower. The tower equivalent, Rock elemental, was rebalanced recently to require 6 Unliving in hand for the full +30 effect compared to 5 Unliving for the same gain in the past.

Typically, when someone mentions construction decks, they're discussing +tower decks that are best played as quick matches. The bulk of Unliving cards are too expensive (and too reliant on having close to a full hand of the keyword) to be of any use in those decks.

I'm not sure what you mean by bricks advantage. I assume you mean the value scale where bricks, recruits, and gems go in that order of value, with the game starting you with more bricks and bricks being the easiest to accumulate. Changing bricks to be more in line with recruits would require rebalancing the entire game, and I don't see the benefit of all of that work.

from my frist post im telling that all related to tower or wall building is stronger than the rest of the cards, that includes the unliving cards being the strongest and easiest deck of all.
Yes i mean that bricks had adventage over the rest of the cards, but taking them down to equal the gems will not need to rebalance the rest of the game because they are actually overpowered, with that simple fix the game may have a lot more balance.
Try, create unliving decks and play against different decks, you will see the diference, and that flexibility is what every other decks lacks.

You misunderstood. The only way to make bricks and gems and recruits of equal value IS to change the entire game. The cards are all balanced around their current, unequal values. Every card's cost and many of the functions (Merchant, as the most obvious example) would need to be redone if one brick is worth the same as one gem.

Are you trying to argue instead for STARTING the game with fewer bricks? That doesn't change how much the resources are worth relative to one another. Even that would require some rebalancing of card costs since many of the oldest cards were rebalanced already to take into account whether they could be played on the first turn.

KingPirux wrote:
Try, create unliving decks and play against different decks, you will see the diference, and that flexibility is what every other decks lacks.

Unliving is my oldest and most-played deck. It is very versatile, yes. It is not, however, without its weaknesses. It requires some fast Quarry gains to get up-and-running, not easy in a standard match, and is nearly impossible to play against a deck that discards several cards like Holy, Barbarian, Burning, and Zero-cost. There are several cards available that allow other decks to be just as versatile if not more so. Whichever resource you're using the least, there are cards that can sacrifice that resource or its facility for defensive or offensive purposes.

None of this has anything to do with the value of bricks.